[1] Zapatero´s rabidly anti-clerical government takes great pride in its new Sistine Chapel of the 21st century, a shrine dedicated to the gods of multilateralism that ultimately seek to bring down the Western Civilization (especially to the Judeo-Christian part) that Zapatero hates so much.

According to Zapatero, the world would be so much more peaceful if the West would just abandon Judeo-Christian monotheism. Never mind the pequeño detalle that hyper-secularists like Zapatero are the embodiment of what Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists hate about the West. Zapatero believes that with a small dose of [2] multilateral group therapy, he will be able to paper over any differences he may have with the Islamists who want to take over his country.” ([3] Soeren Kern, Brussels Journal Nov 20, 2008

[4] Joseph Klein, Frontpage Magazine, 19 Nov. 2008: The Durnan II Conference: The Durban Review of the United Nations World Conference Against Racismis to take place in Geneva. At Durban I, Muslim nations hijacked thge agenda with proposals to condemn Zionism as “racist,” reviving the notorious UN General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism that was passed in 1975 and revoked in 1991. African leaders, with support from radical civil rights activists in the United States who included members of President-elect Obama’s former Trinity United Church of Christ, called for slavery reparations from the United States and other Western nations. Meanwhile, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and other centers of racism, intolerance and human rights atrocities were given a free pass.

The United States and Israel walked out of the 2001 Durban conference in disgust with the anti-Semitic, anti-Western direction it was taking. U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad explained why the Bush administration decided not to participate in Durban II at all under present circumstances

With substantial inputs from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and from regional groups of developing nations, particularly the African delegation, they are busy producing drafts of the final “outcome” document for the conference that drip with hatred for Israel and the West and that display utter contempt for freedom.

.Durban II, like its predecessor 2001 hatefest, is a perfect example of how the United Nations is being used to wrap an evil agenda into a package that purports toadvance the lofty goals of promoting human rights and combating racism. The planners of Durban II aim to focus the agenda on (1) demonizing Israelas a racist, apartheid state; (2) concrete reparations measures to recompense the “descendents” of the victims of slavery, colonialism and discrimination;

(3) making the criticism of Islam a violation of international law on the grounds that it is hate speech unworthy of protection.

[5] As an official project of the equally odious [6] UN Human Rights Council the Durban II travesty is being funded out of the regular UN budget to the tune of nearly seven million dollars.

UN´s Human Rights Council Chamber in Geneva

Here are a few qupotations from the planned programme: "…the most serious manifestations of defamation of religions are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world” “As the existing national laws and courts have failed to address the issue, internationally binding normative standards need to be devised that can provide adequate guarantees against defamation of religions and religious intolerance…National laws alone cannot deal with the rising tide of defamation and hatred against Muslims.”

As with so many other things, President-elect Obama has not enunciated his position on Durban II.

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller, [7] Jyllands-Posten 28 Oct, 2008 Either the OIC withdraws its proposal that criticism of religion is tantamount to racism – or the Western countries will stay away from the UN Conference on Racism, the Durban II. (But alas, that man cannot be trusted!)

[8]

UN Building in Geneva[9] European Council on Foreign RelationsIn the later 1990s, EU positions on human rights were backed by over 70% of votes cast at the UN General Assembly. In the last two years, the level of support has fallen to around 50%. The EU's decline at the UN is apparent in three key fora: the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and the Security Council. The trend in support for Chinese and Russian positions in the same votes has been almost the exact opposite, leaping from around 50% ten years ago to 74% (China) and 76% (Russia) in the last General Assembly session.

Who are the supporters of Durban II [10] The Anna Lindh Foundation 18 Nov.: The Executive Director of the Anna Lindh Foundation, Mr. Andreu Claret, has participated on 18 November 2008, to the inauguration of the new Human Rights and [11] Alliance of Civilisations Chamber at the European Headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva. The inauguration of the chamber was attended by a number of renowned personalities, including the King and Queen of Spain (Members of Rockefeller´s Club of Rome), U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey, and the Swiss president.

[12] As a gift from Spain, the meeting room has been recently refurbished. Miquel Barcelo, one of Spain's leading contemporary artists, has turned the dome of the chamber into a dazzling cave, complete with stalactites, in every imaginable colour.

The “Chamber for Human Rights and for the [13] Alliance of Civilisations[12] ” is the room’s official title and it is now the permanent home of the newly created United Nations Human Rights Council.

Of course the [14] Secretary General of the UN , Ban Ki-Moon was also present and said “The correlation to multilateralism is clear. Multilateral solutions are more necessary than ever. From the financial crisis to climate change and the Millennium Development Goals, the time has come to take multilateralism to a new, stronger and more inclusive level.”

[15] Soeren Kern, Brussels Journal 20 Nov. 2008: As Spaniards debate the artistic value of Barceló’s ceiling, however, excitement has turned into anger as Spanish taxpayers learn that they will be the ones footing the bill. The 13-month redecoration project has cost more than 20 million euros, all of which is being paid for by Spain. “The cave is a metaphor for the Agora, the first meeting place of humans, the big African tree under which to sit to talk, and the only possible future: dialogue, human rights,” says Barceló. Using postmodern rhetoric which closely mimics that employed by Zapatero, Barceló describes his new work as “reaching towards the infinite, bringing a multiplicity of points of view.”

[16] [17] But never mind the pequeño detalle that money was lifted from the foreign aid budget to payfor his grandiose monument to globalism. According to the Spanish government, “everything that is related to human rights is development aid,and in that sense, what is being done in Geneva in the framework of the UN is the best example of that effective multilateralism.”

Ceiling of the Human Rights Council Chamber in Geneva

Spain´s Foreign Minister, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, refused to debate the cost because “art has no price.”He said: “Only fools confuse value and price. This project is a new way of doing diplomacy and foreign policy.

As always with Zapatero, it’s the image that matters, not the substance.

Meanwhile, the thinking goes, if Spain’s example of “art as effective multilateralism” through the UN Human Rights Council and the Alliance of Civilizations can contribute in some way to the demise of Israel and the West, well then Zapatero can also take credit for bringing peace to the Middle East and even to the whole world.

Then the possibilities for building his Socialist utopia will be endless!”

Comment Spain has nostalgic reasons of her own to yearn for Islam: Muslims mastered the "[18] Golden Al Andalus" 711-1492 AD and wiped out Christianity there before 1100 A.D. Is the crisis now so heavy that "our" politicians fear the reaction (think of Iceland) from "their" peoples for the insane immigration costs, that they might shy away from too openly continuing to add insult caused by their attitude to injury? If they participate in Durban II, an already widespread anger will blow into their faces. But if they stay away, they might win a little sympathy from "their" peoples. However, this sympathy they will undoubtedly use as a smokescreen to develop their still more dangerous Mediterranean Union.